DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06 April 2026 has been entered. Claims 22 – 34 are pending and currently being examined.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claims 24 and 25 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Re Claim 24, the phrase “the first body” in Line 1 would be clearer if replaced with the phrase --the first fluid end body--.
In Re Claim 24, the phrase “the second body” in Line 4 would be clearer if replaced with the phrase --the second fluid end body--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 22, 25 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hext (US Patent 4,486,938 A).
PNG
media_image1.png
644
656
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In Re Claim 22, Hext discloses an apparatus (Figure 2), comprising: a plurality of stay rods (the depicted bolts in the annotated Figure 2 above); and a first fluid end body (118) configured to be attached to a second fluid end body (see shaded area in the annotated Figure 2 above) via the plurality of stay rods, the first fluid end body comprising: a plurality of bore pairs (although Figure 2 only shows one pair, Figure 1 shows that there are two pairs), each bore pair comprising: a valve bore (see annotated Figure 2 above) having a wall (border of bore) formed therein; and a plunger bore (see annotated Figure 2 above); in which the valve bore and plunger bore intersect at a chamber; a plurality of valve pairs (although Figure 2 only shows one pair, Figure 1 shows there are two pairs corresponding to: 40, 42, 44, 46; the second pair is in a different cross section plane than the one shown in Figure 2), each valve pair comprising: a discharge valve (116); and an intake valve (114), the intake valve comprising: an intake valve body (connected to spring 144); and an intake valve seat (140); in which the intake valve seat engages the wall of the valve bore; and a plurality of through bores (the through bores are occupied by the depicted bolts) formed therein; in which each of the plurality of through bores is configured to receive one of the plurality of stay rods (see annotated Figure 2 above) in a one-to-one relationship (Column 8, Lines 49 – 68; Figure 2).
PNG
media_image2.png
580
648
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In Re Claim 25, Hext discloses that the second fluid end body (shaded region in the annotated Figure 2 above) comprises: a plurality of fastener bores (these are occupied by the depicted bolts in the annotated Figure 2 above) formed about a periphery of the second fluid end body; in which each of the plurality of fastener bores is configured to receive one of the plurality of stay rods (depicted bolts in the annotated Figure 2 above) in a one-to-one relationship.
In Re Claim 26, Hext discloses that each of the plurality of fastener bores (see annotated Figure 2 above Claim 25) is alignable with a corresponding one of the plurality of through bores (see annotated Figure 2 above Claim 25) on a one- to-one basis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 22, 23, 27 and 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moe (US Patent 7,296,591 B2) in view of Morreale (PG Pub US 20170211565 A1) and further in view of Fujikawa (Japanese Patent JP H10288158 A, Machine Translation provided).
In Re Claim 22, Figure 1 of Moe discloses an apparatus, comprising: a plurality of stay rods (7); and a first fluid end body (8) configured to be attached to a second fluid end body (combination of 5 and 6) via the plurality of stay rods (7), the first fluid end body comprising: a bore pair (one bore is where the plunger 4 reciprocates, the other bore is 9), each bore pair comprising: a valve bore (9) having a wall (where seat 17 engages) formed therein; and a plunger bore (where the plunger 4 reciprocates); in which the valve bore and plunger bore intersect at a chamber (14; Figure 3); a valve pair (18, 19), each valve pair comprising: a discharge valve (19); and an intake valve (18), the intake valve (18) comprising: an intake valve body (21); and an intake valve seat (17, 20; Figure 2); in which the intake valve seat (portion 17) engages the wall of the valve bore (9); and a plurality of bores (corresponding to 7) formed therein; in which each of the plurality of bores (corresponding to 7) is configured to receive one of the plurality of stay rods (7) in a one-to-one relationship (Column 3, Line 46 – Column 4, Line 5; Figures 1, 2, 3).
Although Moe discloses a single bore pair and a single valve pair, it does not disclose a plurality of bore pairs and corresponding plurality of valve pairs.
However, Morreale discloses a plurality of bore pairs (437, 438; Figure 6J; paragraph [0043]) and a plurality of valve pairs (433, 434; Figure 6J; paragraphs [0055],[0056]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to modify the first fluid end of Moe to include a plurality of bore pairs and a plurality of valve pairs as taught by Morreale (instead of just one) because it has been held that a mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art - St. Regis Paper Co. V Bemis Co. 193 USPQ 8.
Although Moe discloses blind bores in the first fluid end body for the stay rods, Moe and Morreale do not disclose through bores for the stay rods in the first fluid end body.
However, Fujikawa discloses a first fluid end body (6) and a second fluid end body (2), both of which have through bores for stay rods (14) (paragraph [0024]; Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to substitute the stay rods (7) and corresponding blind bores the first fluid end body (8) of Moe with through bores for stay rods of Fujikawa because it is only a matter of substituting one connection means (Moe) with another connection means (Fujikawa), therefore the results of the substitution are predictable (MPEP 2141, Section III, Rationale B).
In Re Claim 23, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 22, and Moe discloses that the first fluid end body (8) further comprises a front surface (interface between 5 and 8) and a rear surface (end surface to the right of Figure 1); and in which the front surface is in flush engagement with the second fluid end body (5) as shown in Figure 1; In the modified apparatus the through bores as taught by Fujikawa would extend through both the front surface and the rear surface of the first fluid end body Moe.
In Re Claim 27, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 22, and Figure 1 of Moe clearly shows that the second fluid end body (5, 6) has a lesser thickness than that of the first fluid end body (8).
In Re Claim 32, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 22, and neither one of the first fluid end body (8) and second fluid end body (combination of 5 and 6) of Moe has flanges.
Claim(s) 24, 31, 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moe (US Patent 7,296,591 B2) in view of Morreale (PG Pub US 20170211565 A1) and in view of Fujikawa (Japanese Patent JP H10288158 A, Machine Translation provided) and further in view of Forrest (US Patent 9,371,919 B2).
In Re Claim 24, Moe, Morreale and Fujikawa disclose all the limitations of Claim 23, but they do not disclose that the front and rear surfaces are rectangular in shape.
However, Forrest discloses a first fluid end body (30; Figures 1 and 10; Column 8, Lines 33 – 38) where the front surface (Figure 1) is rectangular and the rear surface (Figure 10) is rectangular.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to form the first fluid end body of Moe such that it is rectangular at the front and rear surfaces as taught by Forrest because it is only a matter of substituting the broadly disclosed first fluid end body shape (Moe) with the specifically disclosed first fluid end body shape (Forrest), therefore the results of the substitution are predictable (MPEP 2141, Section III, Rationale B).
In Re Claim 31, Moe, Morreale and Fujikawa disclose all the limitations of Claim 22, but they do not disclose that the he first fluid end body and the second fluid end body are joined in the shape of a rectangular prism.
However, Forrest discloses a first fluid end body (30; Figure 1; Column 8, Lines 33 – 38) and a second fluid end body (20; Figure 1; Column 8, Lines 33 – 38) that are joined in the shape of a rectangular prism as depicted in Figure 1.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to join the first fluid end body and second fluid end body of Moe / Morreale / Fujikawa in the shape of a rectangular prism as taught by Forrest for the purpose of making the device compact and for the purpose of reducing uneven external surfaces.
In Re Claim 33, Moe, Morreale and Fujikawa disclose all the limitations of Claim 22, and Moe discloses that the second fluid end body (5, 6) has a lesser thickness than the second fluid end body (8) as shown in Figure 1, but they do not disclose that the he first fluid end body and the second fluid end body have the same height and width.
However, Forrest discloses a first fluid end body (30; Figure 1; Column 8, Lines 33 – 38) and a second fluid end body (20; Figure 1; Column 8, Lines 33 – 38) that have the same height and width as depicted in Figure 1.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to form the first fluid end body and second fluid end body of Moe / Morreale / Fujikawa such that they have the same height and width as taught by Forrest for the purpose of making the device compact and for the purpose of reducing uneven external surfaces.
Claim(s) 28 – 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hext (US Patent 4,486,938 A) in view of Redman (US Patent 3,427,988 A).
In Re Claim 28, Hext discloses all the limitations of Claim 22, and Hext further discloses a stuffing box (120), but it does not disclose a packing assembly in the stuffing box.
However, Redman discloses a stuffing box (14); and a packing assembly (15) situated in the stuffing box (14); in which the packing assembly (15) is configured to surround and engage at least a portion of a reciprocating plunger (12) (Column 1, Lines 58 – 62; Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to incorporate the packing assembly as taught by Redman into the stuffing box of Hext such that surrounds and engages at least a portion of a reciprocating plunger as taught by Redman for the purpose of preventing fluid leakage around the plunger and simplifying the construction of the plunger (as compared to the construction of Hext).
In Re Claim 29, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 28, and Hext discloses that the stuffing box (120) is situated partially within the first fluid end body (118) and partially within the second fluid end body (shaded region in the above annotated Figure 2).
In Re Claim 30, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 28, and Redman discloses that the packing assembly (15 - at least the rings that the label points to) is situated within a portion of the stuffing box (14) which is spaced from the second fluid end body (13) and spaced from the first fluid end body (10).
Claim(s) 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hext (US Patent 4,486,938 A) in view of Morreale (PG Pub US 20170211565 A1).
In Re Claim 34, Hext discloses all the limitations of Claim 22, and Hext discloses that the discharge valve (116) comprises a discharge valve body (attached to 146), a discharge valve seat (142) which engages another valve bore, but the bore o Hext that the discharge valve is in is a separate bore from the bore of the suction valve, so Hext does not disclose that the discharge valve is the same bore as the suction valve.
However, Figure 6C of Morreale discloses a suction valve (434; paragraph [0056]) and a discharge valve (433; paragraph [0055]) disposed in a common valve bore (combination of 417 and 438).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to relocate the valves and bores of Hext such that both the suction valve and the discharge valve share a common valve bore as taught by Morreale for the purpose of reducing the horizontal dimension of the apparatus, thus making it more compact.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DNYANESH G KASTURE whose telephone number is (571)270-3928. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu, 7:30 AM to 6:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Essama Omgba can be reached at 469-295-9278. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/D.G.K/Examiner, Art Unit 3746
/NATHAN C ZOLLINGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
Prosecution Insights